Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian,...
Transcript of Karen Lentz, ICANN · IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT 3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian,...
| 2
1. Introduction – Karen Lentz, ICANN2. IAG-CCT – Jonathan Zuck, Chair, IAG-CCT3. CCT Metrics – Eleeza Agopian, ICANN4. Global Consumer Survey – David Dickinson, Nielsen 5. Economic Study – Greg Rafert, Analysis Group 6. Program Implementation Reviews – Trang Nguyen, ICANN7. Rights Protection Mechanisms Review – Karen Lentz, ICANN 8. CCT Review Team Prep – Margie Milam, ICANN 9. Root Stability Study – David Conrad, ICANN 10. GNSO Discussion Group – Bret Fausett, Chair 11. GAC Geographic Names Working Group – Nicolas Caballero, GAC 12. GAC Underserved Regions Working Group – Tracy Hackshaw / Alice
Munyua, GAC 13. CCWG Use of Country & Territory Names – Heather Forrest / Annebeth
Lange14. SSAC New gTLD Issues Work Party – Jim Galvin 15. Q&A
Agenda
IntroductionKaren Lentz, ICANN
| 4
Introduction – Program Reviews
SO/AC Activities: Policy Development and Advice• GNSO Discussion Group• 3 GAC Working Groups (WGs)• CCWG Use of Country and Territory Names• SSAC Working Party
Program Reviews: Data, Studies, Analysis, Comment• Security and Stability Reviews• Program Implementation• Rights Protection Mechanisms• Competition, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice
| 5
Introduction
Competition, Consumer Choice &
Consumer Trust (CCT)
Review
Program Implementation Reviews• Operations team’s
perspective
GNSO & ALAC-Recommended Metrics• Consumer
survey and economic study
Rights Protection Mechanisms• Draft review
published
CCT Review PrepJonathan Zuck Chair, IAG-CCT
| 7
CCT Review Prep
IAG-CCT formedDiscussed 70 metrics recommended by a joint GNSO-ALAC working group
1 2Metrics and targetsRecommended 65 of 70 metrics, added one on name collisions, suggested data sources and targets for measurement
3Survey and economic studyInterim recommendation to conduct a global consumer survey and economic study to capture 13 metrics related to Internet users’ and registrants’ sense of trust and choice, as well as market competition in the domain name system
4Board recommendationICANN Board adopted IAG-CCT’s recommendation for the collection of 66 metrics at ICANN 52, some of which will help establish baselines and will be compared against data collected one year later
CCT MetricsEleeza Agopian, ICANN
| 9
CCT Metrics – Process
Data collection
Online portal
publication
CCT Review Team
| 10
CCT Metrics – Competition
3.2 Total gTLDs before and after expansion3.3 Total gTLD registry operators (contracted parties) before and after expansion
Before expansion
After expansion
Total gTLDs
Total gTLD Registry
Operators
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
18652
14365
| 11
2
7Africa
Europe4
300North America1
1
5
Latin America/Caribbean Islands
199
CCT Metrics – Choice
Asia/Australia/ Pacific Islands
98
2.7 Quantity of legal regimes where new gTLD registry operators are based
| 12
CCT Metrics – Consumer Trust
1.9: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (URDP)/Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Complaints Against Registrants1.10: UDRP/URS Decisions Against Registrants
Global Consumer SurveyDavid Dickinson, Nielsen
June 2015
ICANN GLOBAL CONSUMER RESEARCH
EXECUTIVE PRESENTATION | BUENOS AIRES
Copyrig
ht ©
2013
The
Nielse
n Co
mpany. Con
fiden
tial and
proprietary.
15
BACKGROUND
ICANN’s New TLD Program was developed as part of a community‐driven policy development process that spanned several years and aims to enhance competition and consumer choice for both registrants and Internet users.
RESEARCH WAS IMPLEMENTED AMONG TWO GROUPS
• This report focuses on wave 1 results among the Consumer Segment. A second comparison wave will be conducted in approximately a years time and will provide a set of comparison data.
• Also interviewed were global domain name registrants who will be reported separately.
GOALTo assess the current TLD landscape, as well as measure factors such as consumer awareness, experience, choice, and trust with new TLDs and the domain name system in general.
Copyrig
ht ©
2013
The
Nielse
n Co
mpany. Con
fiden
tial and
proprietary.
16
METHODOLOGY
QUALIFYING CRITERIA
TOTAL OF 6144 CONSUMERS, 24 COUNTRIES, 18 LANGUAGES
Adults 18+5+ hours spent per week on InternetGeographically representative of 75% of global online users
ONLINE SURVEYFebruary 2‐9, 2015
Survey commissioned by ICAAN and conducted by Nielsen
• Argentina• Brazil• Canada• China• Columbia• Egypt• France• Germany• India• Indonesia• Italy• Japan
• Mexico• Nigeria• Philippines• Poland• Russia• South Africa• South Korea• Spain• Turkey• United Kingdom• United States• Vietnam
AWARENESS & VISITATION
Copyrig
ht ©
2013
The
Nielse
n Co
mpany. Con
fiden
tial and
proprietary.
18
LEGACYHigh: .com, .net, .orgModerate: .info, .bizLow: .mobi, .pro, .tel, .asia, .coopGeographically Targeted: based on only those shown in that region
AVERAGE AWARENESS & VISITATIONFamiliarity, real or perceived, differentiates extensionsAmong legacy TLDs, a small number of extensions lead awareness. Despite differences in number of registrations, .com, .net and .org have similar awareness—the virtue of longevity and relevance. New TLDs have room to growIt is interesting that our reference set of new extensions has higher average awareness and reported visitation than the low tier legacy extensions. This reflects a pattern in this research that interpretability of the extension breeds a sense of familiarity.
86% 79%36% 14% 7% 9%
81% 71%22% 15% 7% 4%
AVERAGEAwareness / Visitation
AWARENESS AND VISITATION BASED ON TOTAL SAMPLE
Geo Legacy (country) High Legacy Moderate Legacy New gTLDs New Geo TLDs(city/IDNs)
Low Legacy
NEWGeneric: .email, .photography, .link, .guru, .realtor,.club, .xyzGeographically Targeted: based on only those shown in that region
Copyrig
ht ©
2013
The
Nielse
n Co
mpany. Con
fiden
tial and
proprietary.
19
TOTAL AWARENESS & VISITATIONAwareness generally translates to visitationRelatively few are aware of a TLD but have low intent to visit it.
Perceived relevance of a site is key motivation for intended visitationFamiliarity and perceived relevance also appear to be stronger motivating factors for visiting new TLDs than concerns of legitimacy or trustworthiness.
LEGACY
AWARENESS
NEW
INTENT TO VISIT
2%
54% 56%
94%98%
46% 44%6%
Total Total Generic Extensions GeographicallyTargeted TLDs
Not Aware Aware
LEGACY
5% 15% 15% 20%
95% 85% 85% 80%
Total Total Generic Extensions GeographicallyTargeted TLDs
Low Intent High Intent
NEW
IDNs/City TLDsIDNs/City TLDs
Copyrig
ht ©
2013
The
Nielse
n Co
mpany. Con
fiden
tial and
proprietary.
20The larger the word, the more commonly that theme appeared in open ended responses
GTLD PERCEPTIONSReactions to new gTLDs are largely positiveWhile there are more perceptions related to being confusing, overwhelming or “extreme” for the new TLDs, the key positive themes still show strongly; and new positive themes related to innovation emerge.
LEGACY NEW
TRUST
Copyrig
ht ©
2013
The
Nielse
n Co
mpany. Con
fiden
tial and
proprietary.
22
Top: .com, .net, .orgNew: .email, .photography, .link, .guru, .realtor, .club, .xyzccTLDS, IDNs and City TLDs: based on only those shown in that region
TRUST IN TLDS
Newer TLDs have yet to establish high levels of trustRelative to the top tier legacy TLDs, or to the industry in general, the reference set of new TLDs has relatively lower trust levels.
Trust can be improved by having some level of purchase restrictionsWhile there is a general sense that domain registration should have only light/no purchase restrictions, having some level of purchase restriction does increase the perceived trustworthiness of a particular TLD.
LEGACY TLDSAVERAGE TRUST
(very/somewhat trustworthy)TOTAL
Legacy Extensions
90%(88%‐96% across regions)
ccTLDs 94%(75%‐98% across country)
NEW TLDSAVERAGE TRUST
(very/somewhat trustworthy)TOTAL
New Extensions 49%(39%‐53% across regions)
IDNs/City TLDs 47%(26%‐64% across country)
Copyrig
ht ©
2013
The
Nielse
n Co
mpany. Con
fiden
tial and
proprietary.
23
TRUST & ABUSE
Online users generally expect the domain industry to be diligentOverall, three‐quarters of respondents trust the domain industry to take precautions about who gets a name, to screen registrants, and/or to give consumers what they expect.
Awareness of abuse is generally highMalware, phishing and stolen credentials are all things that at least three quarters of respondents are aware of—cybersquatting is the only bad behavior that the majority are unfamiliar with—only 1 in 3 are aware. Interestingly though, awareness of these bad behaviors is correlated with higher trust in the domain industry.
Fear stems from targeted attacksSome behaviors, e.g. spamming, are annoyances but do not create strong fear. However having one’s online credentials stolen, or falling victim to malware or phishing, are widespread and relatively strong worries.
66%
74%
57%
73%
72%
Don't Fear Abuse
Fear Abuse
Not Aware of Abuse
Aware of Abuse
Total Consumers
Not AwareTRUST IN DOMAIN NAME INDUSTRY
Copyrig
ht ©
2013
The
Nielse
n Co
mpany. Con
fiden
tial and
proprietary.
24
CONCERN ABOUT STOLEN CREDENTIALS
To illustrate, let’s look at “stolen credentials”—what people fear most• Relative to spamming, impact is low, but fear is very high• Still, they take the same precautions as they do for other bad behaviors—AV software and change habits.
• And they see it as primarily a matter for various branches of law enforcement
20%say they have been
IMPACTED
86%are very/somewhat
SCARED
Party Believed To Be Responsible For Stopping Stolen Credentials (Total)
National Law Enforcement
Interpol
Local Police
Consumer Protection Agency
Federal Police
ICAAN
Private Security Companies
FBI
CIA
Don’t Know
••••••••••
43% 34%
31%
30%
28%
21%
16%
5%
2%16%
Measures Taken To Avoid Stolen Credentials (Total)
Purchased Antivirus Software
Changed Internet Habits
Purchased Identity Protection
Stopped Making Online Purchases
Other
None
••••••
46% 24%
15% 10%
4%
23%
Economic StudyGreg Rafert, Analysis Group
The Competitive Effects of ICANN’s New gTLD Program
Phase I – Preliminary Results
Prepared for: ICANN
June 22, 2015
Study Goals & Who We Are– Study goals:
• Understand competitive effects of ICANN’s New gTLD Program on the marketplace for domain names.
• Analyze competition in the past, present, and future.
– Our team includes:
• Catherine Tucker, Mark Hyman Jr. Career Development Professor and Associate Professor of Management Science, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Greg Rafert, Vice President, Analysis Group, a firm specialized in economics, health care analytics, and strategy consulting for Fortune 500 companies, global health care corporations, government agencies and law firms
Assessing Competitive Effects– Registrars and registries may compete on price and non‐price factors.
– Fluctuations in domain name registrations across TLDs and registrars may illuminate:
• The extent registration volumes depend on prices.
• The potential impact of add‐on features on registrations.
• The impact of new gTLDs on legacy TLD registrations.
Summary of Preliminary Results– Main findings (based on limited data):
• Minor price differentiation among most legacy TLDs relative to new gTLDs.
• Legacy TLDs tend to have higher retail markups relative to new gTLDs.
• Legacy TLD registration volumes do not appear to have fallen with the entry of new gTLDs.
• Web hosting and email are the most frequently offered add‐ons.
• Registration costs are low relative to other website add‐on costs.
Our Approach– Collecting and analyzing data to evaluate competitive effects and customer
responses:
• Registry and registrar pricing.
• Add‐on offerings.
• Domain registration volumes of new gTLDs.
– Data requests based on a sample of new gTLDs and ccTLDs, and all legacy TLDs:
• Over 100 new gTLDs, and 15 ccTLDs, including some from each of ICANN’s regions.
• New gTLDs chosen based on current total registrations, recent registration activity, and expected customer overlap with high registration volume gTLDs.
Data Collected to Date– Registry prices collected for over 80 new gTLDs (out of a target sample of
over 100) from the operating registries.
– For legacy TLDs, historical registry price change updates obtained from ICANN. Historical monthly registration volumes obtained from ICANN for legacy and new gTLDs. (For ccTLDs, sufficient data were unavailable.)
– We collected 2015 list prices, and add‐on prices and availability, from a sample of over 35 registrars.
– Historical registrar pricing information requested from 54 registrars.
• Adequate responses received from only 6 of these registrars.
• Historical analysis of registrar pricing is not currently included in our analyses.
Minor wholesale price differentiation among most legacy TLDs over the last 15 years
Notes: [1] Wholesale prices are not adjusted for inflation.[2] Only legacy prices that are publicly available are shown.
Wholesale Prices (April 2015) Legacy TLDs vs. New gTLDs
Note: Wholesale prices were collected directly from the operating registry or provided by ICANN.
Retail Prices (April 2015) Legacy TLDs vs. New gTLDs
Notes: [1] Retail prices were collected from a sample of 39 registrars’ posted list prices.[2] Averages are taken across registrars in our sample that provided, on their website, list prices for a
given TLD.
Retail Markups (April 2015) Legacy TLDs vs. New gTLDs
Notes: [1] Markups are calculated as the percentage difference between the average retail price and the wholesale price.[2] The high markup for the legacy TLDs is .pro, which has special registration requirements.
Little visible effect of new gTLDs on legacy TLD registrations
Note: Volume data are based on monthly transaction reports provided by ICANN.
Hosting and Email – Most available add‐ons
Notes: [1] Data regarding availability were collected from 34 registrars’ online price listings.[2] “Other” includes features such as marketing, search engine optimization, mobile setup, and other registrar-specific features.
Website Cost – Registration costs low relative to other website add‐on costs (across 5 registrars)
Notes: [1] On average, the registrars account for 28% of the included TLDs’ current registrations.[2] Data regarding add-on prices were collected from online price listings.
Next Steps– Phase I:
• We will finalize results and provide a report summarizing our findings in August, 2015.
• We hope to obtain historical data from registrars. If these data become available in the coming weeks, we will provide an analysis of these data in our report.
– Phase II
• In one year’s time, we will revisit and update the results from Phase I.
• To update our results, we will send data requests to both registrars and registries, allowing us to track price and non‐price changes.
ContactCatherine Tucker, Associate Professor of Management [email protected]
Greg Rafert, Vice [email protected]
Program Implementation ReviewsTrang Nguyen, ICANN
| 42
Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments states:
“If and when new gTLDs…have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition,
consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to
mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion.”
Background
| 43
VS
Self-assessments by ICANN staff to examine effectiveness and
efficiency of ICANN’s implementation of the Program.
Reviews will be provided to CCT Review Team to inform its work and used by ICANN in developing future
procedures.
What It Is What It Is Not
Reviews of the community-developed Applicant Guidebook, or
of the GNSO policies on the introduction of New gTLDs.
About the Program Implementation Review
| 44
Broad Participation
New gTLD Program
Implementation
Civil Society
ICANN
Technical Experts
Governments Applicants
Service Providers
ICANN Community
| 45
Review Areas
Application Processing
Application Evaluation
Objection/Dispute
Resolution
Contracting & Transition to Delegation
Applicant Support Program
Continuing Operations Instrument
Contention Resolution
Program Operations
| 46
Review Dimensions
EfficiencyTo what extent resources (time, effort, cost) were well used for the intended purpose.
1
2EffectivenessTo what degree the process was successful in producing desired results/achieving objectives.
3FairnessTo what extent decision-making was consistent, objective and adhered to documented policies and procedures.
4PredictabilityTo what extent the Program process/procedures/timelines provided predictability.
5Security and StabilityTo what extent the process/procedure/framework supported the security and stability of the DNS.
6Alignment to Policy and implementation GuidelinesTo what extent the Program execution adhered to GNSO policy recommendations and AGB.
| 47
Progress Update
• Defined review dimensions (6)• Defined review topics (26)• Created report template• Identified relevant guidance for
the 26 topics• Completed draft of 26 topics• Identified stats for the 26 topics• Drafted glossary• Drafted foreword
• Internal reviews• Check internal report references• Format report• Update final stats• Write executive summary
Completed In Progress
| 48
Sep2014
Dec2014
Aug2015
Sep2015
Oct2015
Dec2015
NextSteps
Review Areas
Defined
Report Template Drafted
Draft Report Finalized
Public Comment
Opens
Public Comment
Closes
Publication date of draft report for comments extended from June 2015 to September 2015 due to expansion of scope of report to incorporate two new review areas, Applicant Support and Continued Operations Instrument.
Updates
Reviews Timeline
Final Report Published
Rights Protection Mechanisms ReviewKaren Lentz, ICANN
| 50
Goals
Capture user experience with new RPMs
Outline the range of issues for discussion
Identify those issues with most impact
Consideration of how RPMs affect stakeholders in DNS context
Helping inform additional work in community
Supporting prioritization on future work
| 51
Draft RPM Review Report
Tile 1 Tile 2 Tile 3
CCT ReviewTrademark
Clearinghouse Independent
Review
GNSO Issue Report
Public comment period: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en
• Report updates in process based on comment
Supports:
| 52
Key Areas of Comment
• “Premium pricing”• Concern about higher Sunrise registration fees for
some trademark names • Reserved names
• Concern that reserve lists potentially allow registries to circumvent Sunrise requirements
• Duration of Claims service• Interest in extending the service
• URS remedy• Interest in transfer in addition to suspension option
• Blocking services• Described as useful and cost effective, with some
concerns on rules
Report of public comments: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en
| 53
What’s Next?
Jul• Updated RPM Review Report
Sep• TMCH Independent Review
Sep• CCT Review – Call for Volunteers
Oct• GNSO Issue Report (all RPMs)
CCT ReviewMargie Milam, ICANN
| 55
The Affirmation of Commitments
Scope: Review examines the extent to which new gTLDs have promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the
introduction or expansion
Recurring Reviews: 1 yr after New gTLDs in operation, 2 years later, and then at least every 4 yrs
Outcome: Recs sent to Board, which acts within 6 mo. Implementation or if necessary, GNSO PDP follows Board action
Process Improvements: Public comment on streamlined procedures open until 2 July. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-2015-05-15-en
| 56
Composition of Review Team - AoC
The reviews will be performed by volunteer community members … and will include the following (or their designated nominees):
• GAC Chair• ICANN CEO• Relevant SO/ACs representatives• Independent Experts
The RT Composition will be agreed jointly by the GAC Chair (in consultation with GAC members) and the ICANN CEO
| 57
June 2015
Sep-Oct2015
Dec2015
Mar2016
Mar2017
ICANN 53-Planning -
Review Team
Formation
Call For Volunteers & Appoint RT Members
Planning for Review Team
Conduct Review
Estimated Timeline for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Under the AoC
CCT Review Timeline & Milestones
Board Action on RT
Recommendations
Root Stability StudyDavid Conrad, ICANN
| 59
5 June2015
2 July 2015
10 Aug2015
10 May 2016
June-July 2016
25 April 2017
RFP published
Proposals due
Estimated project start
date
Draft report published
Public comment
period
Using data from root server operators, as well as historically available data, the study should provide an understanding of the impact of adding new gTLDs to the root. ICANN anticipates public comment received after publication of the first draft will inform the context and content of the final study and report.
Goals and expectations
Root Stability Review
Final report published
Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
GNSO Discussion GroupBret Fausett, Chair
| 62
Background on origins of the
Discussion Group (DG)
Current status and review of DG Deliverables
Next steps and estimated timelines
N/A N/A
1 2 3
Agenda
| 63
Background
With more than 650 new gTLDs delegated, the community felt that analysis and discussion of the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program should begin.
GNSO Council formed the Discussion Group in June 2014 to discuss experiences gained from the 2012 round and identify subjects for future issue report(s) that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent application procedures.
Community members from a broad spectrum of SO/AC/SG/Cs contributed to identify issues that they or their constituents experienced.
Background
GNSO Initiates Discussion Group
Broad participation
| 64
• The DG held calls and met face-to-face to identify issues they encountered, organizing them logically in a mind map
• Associated the issues with principle, , recommendation or implementation guidance from 2007 New gTLD Final Report
• Help understand how issue is best resolved (e.g., amend/add/delete policy, new policy, etc.)
• Provided subjects and provisional groupings for possible Issue Report/PDP
Deliberations of the DG Deliverables
• Drafted an executive summary, providing brief background and current program status, along with a narrative of the group’s deliberations
• Prepared a matrix which assigns identified issues to the original GNSO recommendations, where possible
• Prepared a draft charter which may be included and used with a possible Issue Report / PDP Working Group
Current Status
| 65
June2015
Aug2015
Sept2015
Oct2015
NextSteps
Council vote on Request
for Issue Report
Preliminary Issue Report
– Public Comment
Complete Final Issue
Report
GNSO Council may initiate PDP
The DG has provided a recommended set of issues/subjects for further analysis in a possible Issue Report/PDP. There are a number of steps remaining before a PDP could be initiated.
To Summarize
Next Steps
| 66
Summary of DG Activities: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/non-pdp-new-gtld
DG Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/OrXhAg
More Information
GAC WG: Protection of Geographic Names in New gTLDsNicolas Caballero
Objectives• Lower uncertainty for the applicant, for countries,
regions and communities.• Prevent/avoid misuse of names which are relevant for
communities, regions, countries, etc.• Lower the conflicts once the results of new round of
new GTLDs will be announced.• Give background information which can be useful to
ICANN in the definition of the next round of new gTLDs rules.
GAC Durban Communique ‐ July 2013:Refine the Rules for Next gTLD Round
• Possible actions at the national/regional level to protect geographic names
• Possible text for new AGB or other future document• Possible Best Practice Guidelines• Analysis of legal concerns raised in public comments• Analysis of community concerns: should geographic
names or community‐related names be “Community applications” in new rounds of new gTLDs?
• Analysis of the “public interest” concept
WG Working on New Background Document Focused on:
70
• Promote an early contact between applicant and relevant authorities and communities related with the geographic or community name.
• Enhance outreach efforts for the next new gTLD round.• Establish clear steps/way forward for both the applicants and government in reaching consensus in relation with the applied gTLD.
• Establish a clear process for governments to raise their concerns when their territories’ ‐ regions, cities or other – relevant names are used in the next new gTLD round.
• Establish rules about what’s next if there is no consensus reached between both parties.
Some Ideas for Best Practice Guidelines
• ICANN is where the new gTLDs process is happening.• There were problems.• No changes to the rules = same problems in the future.• WG will present during this meeting a new version of
the background document that includes information from community comments: legal concerns, community concerns and a revision of the “public interest” concept.
• WG meets during ICANN meetings and through conference calls between F2F meetings.
Next Steps
Tracy Hackshaw / Alice MunyuaGAC Working Group on Underserved Regions
ICANN53 – Buenos AiresNew gTLD Program Reviews Session
GAC Under‐Served RegionsWorking Group
ObjectivesThe focus of this GAC WG is on regions that are currently under‐served by the DNS industry and on least developed economies and small island developing states.
It’s objectives are to develop a range of support, advice and assistance mechanisms for under‐served regions aimed at:
1. Increasing the number and participation of GAC members from least developed economies and small island developing states; and
2. Increase the knowledge, understanding and capacity of GAC representatives from current GAC member nations who are defined as ‘under‐served’. This will encourage them to engage more deeply with ICANN policy processes and for the following outcomes:a) Increased participation from under‐served regions during future new
gTLD rounds; andb) Growth and development in the domain name industry in the
currently under‐served regions.
Under‐Served Region
An Under‐Served Region is defined as:
A region that does not have a well developed DNS and/or associated industry or economy; and/or
A Region that has low awareness within its government of ICANN, ICANN’s role and functions and policy processes and the way that these policies affect it.
Work Plan
1. Facilitation of a ccTLD Survey among GAC members.
2. Engagement with the gTLD Review team to share the challenges
and lessons learned by Under‐Served Regions
3. Engagement with the Auction Fees Working Group and the
development of a proposal on how Auction fees might be
purposed to benefit Under‐Served Regions
4. Capacity building activity to result in increased numbers of GAC
members from under‐served regions and increased knowledge
and skills for those who are already GAC members
Heather ForrestAnnebeth LangeCo-Chairs, Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country & Territory Names
Jim GalvinChair, SSAC New gTLD Issues Work Party
| 79
¤ Review of all recommendations since SAC045(November 2010)¤ Is there new information to add to ourfindings the community should consider?¤ Root scaling, name collisions, reservednames – what have we learned about howthings are working?
¤ Are there any new recommendations?
¤ Timings – are there any constraints that should affect the timing of the next round?
SSAC New gTLD Program Review
Q&A
| 81
Reach us at:Email: [email protected]: icann.org
Thank You and Questions
gplus.to/icann
weibo.com/ICANNorg
flickr.com/photos/icann
slideshare.net/icannpresentations
twitter.com/icann
facebook.com/icannorg
linkedin.com/company/icann
youtube.com/user/icannnews
Engage with ICANN